Columbus, Georgia

MINUTES

COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA

REGULAR SESSION

DECEMBER 4, 2001





The regularly scheduled night meeting of the Council of Columbus, Georgia

was called to order at 5:34 P.M., Tuesday, December 4, 2001, on the Plaza Level

of the Government Center, Columbus, Georgia. Honorable John J. Rodgers, Mayor

Pro Tem, presiding.



*** *** ***



PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers were Councilors R. Gary

Allen, Berry Henderson, Robert Poydasheff, Richard Smith and Nathan Suber. City

Manager Carmen Cavezza, City Attorney Clifton Fay, and Deputy Clerk of Council

Sandra Davis were also present.



ABSENT: Mayor Bobby G. Peters was absent. Councilors Julius H. Hunter, Jr.,

Evelyn Turner Pugh and Evelyn Woodson were absent but were officially excused

upon the adoption of Resolutions No. 609-01, 610-01 and 611-01 respectively.

Clerk of Council Tiny B. Washington was also absent.



After noticing the great number of individuals present in the audience who

were standing, Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers pointed out that there is additional

seating available downstairs in the Jury Room with a monitor available for

individuals to view the meeting from that area.



*** *** ***











INVOCATION: Offered by Pastor Commie Thornton- Sight Seeing Road Chapel in

Fort Benning.

---------------------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------------



PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Mayor Pro Tem John J. Rodgers.

---------------------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------------

MINUTES: Minutes of the November 20 and November 27, 2001 meetings of the

Council of the Columbus Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia were

submitted and approved unanimously upon the adoption of a motion made by

Councilor Poydasheff and seconded by Councilor Smith.

---------------------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------------



ABSENCE OF MAYOR PETERS:



Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers briefly mentioned that Mayor Peters would not be

present for the meeting tonight due to being out of town on business.



-------------------------------------------*** ***

***-------------------------------------------

PUBLIC HEARING:



THE FOLLOWING ZONING SETTLEMENT OFFER WAS SUBMITTED BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY

AND A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED FROM THE LAST MEETING:





The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the rezoning of 2472 Martha?s

Loop. A Walgreens Drug Store has been proposed for this site. (The Petitioner

is Fog Development regarding a previous rezoning matter that was defeated by

the Council.) (20-CA-00- Fog Development)



Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers advised that this is the continued public hearing on

2472 Martha?s Loop, at which time, City Attorney Fay recognized the presence of

the petitioners in this matter.



PROPONENTS:



Mr. Joe Waldrop, representing Fog Development, came forward to reiterate

that Fog Development would like to build a pharmacy on Macon Road. He pointed

out that previously, Fog Development had petitioned to rezone this property to

a C-3 zoning classification and was declined by the Council. He explained that

they appealed the case to the Superior Court and that proceeding has been going

on a while. He pointed out that for the last couple of months, we have been

attempting to settle this litigation or this appeal that is pending in Superior

Court; therefore, the issue that is before the Council tonight is to settle or

not to settle the litigation that is pending before Judge Doug Pullen in

Superior Court. He stated that the trial has been set for later in December.

He reminded everyone that we had the trial date set for December 6, 2001, but

we were able to get it delayed. He made comments regarding the drainage in

this area by emphasizing that several complaints have been made regarding this

situation; but nothing has ever been done. He determined that if we are able

to resolve this matter, Fog Development has committed to do something about it

and hopefully control the water run-off. He requested that the Council vote

tonight to approve the settlement; thereby, making it possible to move forward

with the development of this property. He called attention to the individuals

that were present with him and are listed as follows: Ms. Linda Dunlavy, Mr.

Mike Twiner the Engineer with Fog Development and Mr. Gerrard Gunther

representing the developer. He informed everyone that there are individuals on

Martha Loop who would like to see the Walgreens Store operate on this

property. He then presented a petition signed by some individuals who reside

on Martha?s Loop. (A copy of the petition has been filed for the record.) He

then recognized Ms. Linda Dunlavy to summarize the proposal that has been put

forth.



Ms. Linda Dunlavy, an attorney representing Fog Development, presented a

large drawing or outline of the property and highlighted the development

patterns of surrounding properties along Macon Road. She reiterated that the

settlement proposal requests an A-O zoning classification and it also makes a

number of proposals with respect to drainage improvements that were not on the

table, when this rezoning matter was before the City Council. She explained

that it also reduces the square footage of the proposed store from what it was

when it was before the Council previously by approximately 15 to 20%, because

the original request was in excess of 15,000 square feet, but the settlement

order will reduce it to 14,490 square feet. She added that a large component

of the settlement order is the acquisition of Mr. Marchetti?s property directly

to the south of the subject. She pointed out that with the acquisition of Mr.

Marchetti?s property, this would allow the use of his property to increase the

vegetative buffer between the Walgreens property and any adjoining residences.

She addressed the proposal for the 40 feet vegetative buffer running all along

the southern property line, and that vegetative buffer will serve as a

screening for the residential homes to the south, which also allows us to have

more storm water control and would also allow us to completely eliminate the

retaining wall that was originally purposed. She called attention to the how

the Seventh-Day Adventist Church would be affected if this property retains the

current zoning classification. In conclusion, she urged the Council to vote in

favor of this settlement offer.



Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers asked if Fog Development had any plans to remarket

Mr. Marchetti?s property, at which time, Ms. Dunlavy responded by saying that

at some point that is correct; however, a portion of that property, pursuant to

the settlement order would be set aside for an easement, and the easement would

require that the vegetative buffer directly to the south of the property line

remain that way in perpetuity for an additional buffer; therefore, whomever

purchases property not be able to set that easement aside. She pointed out

that there is also a triangular piece just west of the creek, between Mr.

Marchetti?s property and Mr. Cadena?s property, which the settlement offer

proposes that also be used as a vegetative buffer and that it not be

disturbed. She maintained that the check dams that are proposed to be put

south of the property line would be put in before any sell of the remaining

portion of Mr. Marchetti?s property with Fog Development assuming the risk, if

this settlement offer is accepted, of any potential diminution in value upon

resale of this property. She advised that Fog Development is not generally in

the business of maintaining residential properties.



When asked by Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers about the chance of failure of the

drainage system once the property is sold by Fog Development, Ms. Dunlavy

explained that the terms of the easement provide that the buffer would be

maintained as a drainage easement with Fog Development having responsibility

for maintaining that easement with the same being true with the check dams.



Councilor Allen asked several questions regarding the cost of various

items that would be purchased by Fog Development to comply with the settlement

offer. Ms. Dunlavy estimated that the wall would cost $40,000.00 and the fence

approximately $6,000.00. She advised that these are rough figures. After

there were continued discussions on the cost of vegetation, Mr. Mike Twiner,

approached the podium to advise that he does not have specific figures, but

offered that the current plan is more expensive. When asked about the purchase

price of the property by Councilor Allen, Ms. Dunlavy explained that we have a

purchase contract and the amount of the purchase contract has been agreed upon

by both parties to remain confidential. She added that the purchase price was

based upon two individual appraisals of fair market value. After further

request for the purchase cost were made, Ms. Dunlavy contended that she could

not divulge that information, because she would be in violation of the purchase

agreement.



Mr. Ted Theus, a deacon at the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, came forward

to advise that he is representing the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in this

capacity. He briefly explained the need to sell the property because there is

not adequate space for the children to play and the need for growth.



Ms. Janice Baird, the originator of the petition that was passed around

the table earlier during these proceedings, expressed her concerns with

continuous discussions regarding the drainage, because she doesn?t see where

there is a problem. She pointed out that there has only been once that she has

seen the creek overflow. She also addressed the parking situation.



When asked by Councilor Suber for the number of individuals that live on

Martha?s Loop who signed the petition, and after Ms. Baird went down the list

pointing out the residents of Martha Loop, it was determined that out of the

list of seventeen names that there were eight residents who live on Martha

Loop.



OPPONENTS:



Mr. David Howle, approached the podium, to express his concerns regarding

the traffic and parking situation if the development was to occur. He then

requested that the Council uphold their previous decision to deny the request.



The following individual also came forward to express similar concerns:

Pastor James Hall, Pastor of Edgewood United Methodist Church.



Mr. Joel Harrowitz came forward to provide some input on his experience

with the Walgreens Store that is located on Buena Vista Road. He cautioned the

citizens to be leery of the what the developers tell them. He explained that

in order to get the agreement of the residents it the area, the developer

promised that there would be a 15 feet buffer with trees, bushes, etc., but now

the developers are reneging on that.



Mr. George Wade, approached the podium to comment on the storm water

runoff and the role of Mr. Marchetti in this process by him reaching an

agreement with Fog Development for the purchase of his property.



Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers interrupted at this time, by stating that the facts

speak for themselves, and he cannot allow Mr. Wade to continue with his

speculations surrounding the circumstances of Mr. Marchetti and Fog

Development.



After Mr. Wade made some additional comments regarding this issue, City

Attorney Fay said for the record, Mr. Marchetti and his wife, Paula, filed a

motion to intervene in this litigation as individuals and they also assisted

the City in defending this litigation. He explained that Mr. Marchetti has

volunteered a lot of his time in assisting the City and the Office of the City

Attorney in this litigation. He reiterated that Mr. Marchetti filed, as an

individual, a motion to intervene and the judge directed that he be present at

all depositions and all court proceedings.



The following individuals also came forward to express their opposition to

the proposed settlement: Ms. Gayle Humphries 2226 Martha?s Loop, Mr. Bob

Hutchinson, Mr. Jack Cadena 2452 Martha?s Loop, Mr. Paul Jones 2459 Elm Drive



Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers advised that Mr. Joe Waldrop would like to be heard

once again on this matter. Councilor McDaniel so moved. Seconded by Councilor

Poydasheff and carried unanimously by those seven members present for this

meeting.



Mr. Waldrop asked to be heard to address some of the issues that had been

raised by the opponents. He then allowed Ms. Dunlavy to respond to the traffic

situation. Ms. Dunlavy outlined the two conditions in the proposal that

address the traffic issue and are listed as follows:



v Widening of Martha?s Loop at the point that the property abuts Martha?s Loop.



v The right-turn out only onto Martha?s Loop with concrete channeling.



Ms. Dunlavy then reminded everyone of the previous rezoning matter in

which the Engineering Department did not foresee any serious negative impact

with the addition of the Walgreens Store.



In response to comments regarding the Walgreens Store on Buena Vista Road,

Ms. Dunlavy contended that Fog Development is not the developer of that

property. She advised that we did not make promises in regards to that store.

She said we have more that promises, because the Council has before them a

proposal that would require that these conditions be made a part of the court

order; therefore, if Fog Development does not comply with these conditions;

then, Fog Development could be in contempt of the consent order and the

Superior Court would deal with us accordingly.



Ms. Dunlavy addressed the situation with Mr. Marchetti, by advising that

it was only a couple of months ago that Fog Development approached Mr.

Marchetti about the purchase of his property. She said that we did so with the

encouragement of the City Attorney, because he thought that having this

additional property would ameliorate any negative affects of the Walgreens.



Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers interrupted at this point to ask if the City

Attorney had advised Fog Development to purchase Mr. Marchetti?s property, at

which time, Ms. Dunlavy restated her comment by replying that the city Attorney

did not tell us to do that, but there was a conversation where it was suggested

to do that.



There were continued discussions on this matter with Ms. Dunlavy making

several remarks in response to issues that had been raised by the

neighborhood. She mentioned that we offered to give Mr. Cadena a portion of

the property that we would be purchasing from Mr. Marchetti. She explained

that we offered to give him every piece of property west of the creek on Mr.

Marchetti?s land, but that if he did not accept this gift; then, as part of our

condition of settling this case, we would propose for that portion of the

property west of the creek be maintained as a permanent buffer. She pointed

out that Mr. Cadena informed Mr. Gunther that he was not interested in that

proposal, but that he may entertain some sort of offer for the purchase of his

property, but we are not in the position to buy property simply because someone

wants to sell it to Fog Development.



Ms. Dunlavy then responded to several questions from Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers

in which he also expressed concerns regarding the traffic and the atrocious

drainage system at the Veterans Parkway Walgreens Store. She pointed out that

once it was brought to our attention from the last Council meeting, we

immediately took action and the situation is being rectified.



Mr. Marchetti, approached the podium to state that he only represents his

own interest. He informed everyone that he moved to intervene in the

proceedings when the matter got to court in his name and his wife?s name. He

pointed out that Judge Pullen didn?t grant that motion to intervene, but simply

took it under advisement, but never permitted him to intervene throughout the

entire proceedings. He advised that when depositions where about to be taken,

City Attorney Fay was not present during any of the Council proceedings because

Mr. Polleys was working on this case; therefore due to that reason, City

Attorney Fay was not familiar with the facts and had asked him to help with

regards to the underlying fact, because he had a knowledge of them. He pointed

out that City Attorney Fay petitioned Judge Pullen to permit him to sit with

him during the depositions in order to assist the City Attorney, and Judge

Pullen ruled that he could be there to assist the City Attorney, but could not

ask any questions.



This matter was concluded after one hour and fifty minutes of discussion

and City Attorney Fay declared the public hearing as being held. Mayor Pro Tem

Rodgers added that since this is a legal matter, we will deal with it in

executive session.



-------------------------------------------*** ***

***-------------------------------------------

CITY ATTORNEY?S AGENDA:



THE FOLLOWING ZONING ORDINANCES WAS SUBMITTED AND ITS CAPTION READ BY CITY

ATTORNEY FAY AND THE FIRST READING WAS DELAYED FOR TWO

WEEKS:





An Ordinance -. Rezoning approximately 7.681 acres of property at the

northeast corner of Manchester Expressway and I-185 from a M-1 District to a

C-3 District. (50-CA-01-Columbus Properties, LLC.)



Councilor Allen advised that the petitioners have asked for a two-week

delay and so moved. Seconded by Councilor Poydasheff and carried unanimously

by those seven members present for this meeting.



*** *** ***







THE FOLLOWING ZONING ORDINANCE WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY

ATTORNEY FAY AND A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AS

ADVERTISED:





An Ordinance - Rezoning approximately 1.62 acres of property located at

the southwest end of Amber Vista Court from an R-3A District to an R-4

District. (53-CA-01-Amber Vista Partners, LLC.)



PROPONENTS:



The petitioner was present, but made no presentation with there being no

one present opposing this rezoning.

-------------------------------------------*** ***

***-------------------------------------------



NOTE: See below for the continuation of this public hearing.



-------------------------------------------*** ***

***-------------------------------------------



THE FOLLOWING ZONING ORDINANCE WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY

ATTORNEY FAY AND A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AS ADVERTISED:



An Ordinance - Rezoning approximately 14.572 acres of property located at

8201 Midland Road and 8111 Old Pope Road from an A-1 District to an R-1

District. (54-D-01-Luquire)



PROPONENTS:



Mr. Brace Luquire, representing the petitioner Mr. Dave Erickson, came

forward and made reference to a previous attempt by Mr. Erickson to rezone

another parcel of property that was being requested for R-1A, which was

denied. He explained that several Councilors had expressed some problems with

the R-1A zoning classification and suggested that he come back with larger size

lots. He advised that the subject property is a little over 14 acres and they

would like to put houses there, which would average about two houses per acre.

He then asked those individuals present in the audience who support this

rezoning to stand, and approximately twelve individuals rose from their seats.



Councilor Allen then asked if the individuals who stood up in favor of

this rezoning lived in the Midland area, at which time, Mr. Luquire pointed out

that these are all residents of Columbus, Georgia and have business interest in

Columbus.



Continuing with his comments, Mr. Luquire maintained that this rezoning

request is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that all of the

facts support changing the zoning as requested.



Councilor McDaniel suggested an amendment to this ordinance to include a

maximum of two houses per acre and so moved. Seconded by Councilor Smith.



Mr. Luquire called attention to some other development planning in this

particular area for a M-1 zoning classification. He commented that this would

be totally against the Comprehensive Plan, which provides for low density

residential that is consistent with this rezoning request.



Councilor Smith reading excerpts from the staff report, emphasized the

justification by the Planning Division to deny this rezoning request, ?Because

the request is not consistent with the land use policy.? He explained that he

has a tough time using that as justification for denial considering that he

does not recall a policy being implemented just because we voted nine to one to

deny the last rezoning request. City Manager Cavezza explained that we talk

about a plan that is not locked in concrete, and the desires of the citizenry

are a factor to this. He added that what we read from the Council?s action was

that the Council reacted to the desires of the citizens in that area, and that

is the reason for our position.



Councilor Smith said that he cannot recall where one denial changed the

land use plan for that area. City Manager Cavezza pointed out that the staff

made a recommendation of what their opinion of what the zoning issue was, but

it is a recommendation and the Council can accept it or reject it.



There were continued discussions on this matter with various Councilors

expressing their views. Councilor Allen said that this rezoning does not have

anything to do with the future growth of the panhandle. He said that all this

deals with is the property off of Midland Road, and the future growth of the

panhandle would be dealt with when the administration brings a Comprehensive

Plan back. He contended that there is plenty of land out in the panhandle for

people to go out there and rezone R-1, R-1A etc. He said that he believes that

everyone expects that the panhandle would be rezoned with commercial,

manufacturing and some of it may remain A-1 zoning. He said that we are asking

that those homes that are already established in A-1 tracts to be protected.



When asked by Mr. Luquire if Councilor Allen would be supportive of the

motion on the table for two houses per acres, Councilor Allen responded by

saying that if the petitioners commit to two homes per acre and provide a plan

showing that the homes that are existing would be protected; then, we could sit

down and discuss the matter further, but he does not want to commit to that

right now.



Councilor Suber said that what we are saying is that the Comprehensive

Plan has basically never meant anything, and when citizens from other areas

come before us and this Council has argued the point that we wanted to be in

compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that it sounds somewhat

contradictory in saying that in one area it is okay to do this and in another

area it is not.



Mr. David Fox, rose from the audience and stated that he works with Mr.

Erickson and more specifically he works for Tiger Creek Development. He passed

around the table a letter from Mr. Ronald Edwards, who is the past president of

the Homebuilders Association. (A copy of the letter was filed for the record.)

He pointed out that the recommendation from the Planning Division is

contradictory in that on the first page of the referral which ask the question

is this rezoning compatible to the land use plan; the answer is yes.



After responding to some comments from members of Council, Mr. Fox advised

that tomorrow, the Planning Advisory Commission would be addressing two more

requests for the other two parcels that join this 14-acre tract.



Referring back to the motion regarding two houses per acre, Mr. Fox

advised that we agree with the concept of two houses per acre, if it is applied

to the whole issue. Councilor Allen said that you are talking about an average

and not an exact. He then asked if Mr. Fox had a plan drawn out by a

professional, at which time, he responded that he did not.



Mr. Scott Barnett, approached the podium and identified himself as the

Regional Manager of Plymart. He pointed out that Plymart was the first company

to move into the Enterprise Zone. He made reference to a letter from Mr. Randy

MaHathy voicing his support for this rezoning. He then pointed out that home

building is what Plymart does and they provide to the builders. He said that

it is vital to them that the Council acts in a prudent manner in these zoning

issues.



The following individual also came forward to make comments regarding

support of the rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Steve Dixon, President

of Signature Construction.



Councilor Allen mentioned that there have been several comments regarding

Green Island Hills and Maple Ridge. He said that to his knowledge, there is

not a single home in Green Island Hills that cost $150,000. He said that the

lots may be somewhat smaller, but there is not any that cost in that price

range, and the square footage is much larger than the ones offered in Garrett

Creek. He pointed out that Maple Ridge was a planned community, so, when a

person makes the decision to reside there, they show you the whole lay out;

therefore, you are aware of all of the different housing mechanisms and that is

the difference in that this neighborhood is already established for one acre

and up.



OPPONENTS:



Mr. Terry Gumbert, approached the podium to express his opposition to the

proposed rezoning. He explained that his sole opposition to this rezoning is

density. After reading excerpts of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Gumbert

determined that the Comprehensive Plan is a reference and guideline for the

Council to make determinations, but without the rigidity of it being a law or

regulation.



The following individuals came forward to express their opposition to the

proposed rezoning matter: Mr. Seth Harp, Ms. Scherry Odom, Mr. Fred Gant, Mr.

Jamie Redmond, Ms. Leslie Landy, Mr. Terry Fields and Ms. Judy Rowe.



Councilor Smith asked how far away is it before transitional rezoning

would be acceptable, because everyone is saying they are acceptable to

transitional rezoning, at which time, Mr. Gant responded that the areas should

be proposed and get the citizens input, and that is how you can learn where

that transitional boundary lies.



Councilor Allen called attention to the petition that was provided in the

Council?s packet with there being 294 signatures of those people who live in

the area and who would be directly affected by this. He pointed out that this

petition does not contain those signatures of individuals that have moved into

the area since this was signed with the potential being well over 300

signatures.



Councilor Suber recalled that Councilor Turner Pugh had requested that the

staff bring back some information based upon a zoning classification between

A-1 and R-1. He then asked where are we with that information, at which time;

City Manager Cavezza replied that this would be part of the Comprehensive Plan

that we are working on. He pointed out that we have some zoning consultants

working with us on looking at different options on different size acreage. In

response to another question regarding when this would be completed, City

Manager Cavezza advised that it would all be wrapped up in the way we do the

Comprehensive Plan and the way we make these transition zones.



When asked about how many individuals were present for the meeting

regarding the Comprehensive Plan, and after City Manager Cavezza conferred with

Mr. Rick Jones, City Manager Cavezza responded by saying there were over 300

individuals present. Councilor Allen added that he was told that there were

roughly 375 individuals present.



After more than one hour and a half of discussion on this matter,

Councilor Allen thanked all of the neighbors that came to the meeting tonight

and also for waiting so patiently on this matter.



Councilor Suber asked about the resolution that was dated May 8th, that

makes reference to two series of public hearings in accordance with the Georgia

Planning Act. He then asked how many individuals were present at those public

hearings. City Manager Cavezza said that he did not know right off, but he

would check on that. Councilor Suber went on to say that when the zoning pages

were put into the book and when you start to look at R-1, R-1A and R-2 which

directly addresses low density residential; thereby, what the Comprehensive

Plan was alluding to is that the zoning that we have in our booklet dealt with

low density residential, and did not say that it had to be A-1, at which time,

City Manager Cavezza responded by saying that is correct.



Before City Attorney Fay was able to declare that the public hearing had

been held on this matter, Ms. Phyllis Leggett came forward to say that she is a

resident of Cameo Street, which is directly behind Amber Vista. She advised

that when the rezoning matter for Amber Vista was called for, she was

downstairs in the Jury Room. Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers respectfully asked that Ms.

Leggett wait until the rezoning matter on the table has been completed.



City Attorney Fay said that if there are no further comments; then, the

public hearing has been held on this matter, but there is a motion on the

table. When asked by Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers if Councilor McDaniel wanted to

renew his motion. Councilor McDaniel then withdrew his motion.



*** *** ***



THE FOLLOWING ZONING ORDINANCE WAS CALLED UP ONCE AGAIN FOR PUBLIC

HEARING:





An Ordinance - Rezoning approximately 1.62 acres of property located at

the southwest end of Amber Vista Court from an R-3A District to an R-4

District. (53-CA-01-Amber Vista Partners, LLC.)



While Ms. Leggett was approaching the podium, Councilor Poydasheff pointed

out that we should certainly allow hearing opposition to this rezoning request,

but in as much as the time where the proponents was here and there was no

opposition, he would suggest and so move that we continue first reading until

next week to give the proponent an opportunity to come back and present his

case to the Council, which he did not do tonight.



Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers suggested sending this matter forward to second

reading for next week with the stipulation that anyone wishing to be heard on

the matter could be heard on second reading. Councilor Henderson suggested

that Ms. Leggett be heard tonight; since, she has waited through this evening.

Councilor Poydasheff said that since individuals would be allowed to be heard

on second reading on this matter he would offer to withdraw his motion.



OPPONENTS:



Ms. Phyllis Leggett, came forward and gave her address to be 5720 Cameo

Street, which is the area directly behind Amber Vista Estates. She pointed out

that she had submitted a petition, upon learning that the developers wanted to

put apartments in the area. She expressed concerns with the neighbors across

the street not receiving notification regarding this matter, traffic on Amber

Drive and Buena Vista Road, and the prospect of multi-family dwellings.



At the request of Councilor Allen, Mr. Jones explained that the property

is currently R-3A and under that zoning classification, the developers could go

in there now and put apartments in. He stated that they could also have direct

access back off that court as well, but the developer has agreed not to do

that, but he wants to conform all of that property into one zoning

classification; there is an R-4 property adjacent to this property. He said

that the developer is looking at developing approximately 24 units to go in

there.



After continued discussions on this matter with Mr. Jones responding to

various questions, Councilor Suber made a motion to continue this rezoning on

first reading. Seconded by Councilor Allen, which carried by a vote of six to

one with Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers voting no and all others present voting yes.



Councilor Poydasheff suggested that Mr. Jones get together with the

developer to sit down with the neighborhood and explain exactly what is being

proposed before the next meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers requested that the

petitioner be notified tomorrow of the action that has taken place tonight to

put him on plenty of notice.

-------------------------------------------*** ***

***-------------------------------------------



PUBLIC AGENDA:



MR. RICK FLOWERS, REPRESENTING VRM, INC., RE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

AGENT HELD ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE:



City Manager Cavezza informed the members of Council that Mr. Flowers has

cancelled his scheduled appearance tonight.



-------------------------------------------*** ***

***-------------------------------------------

CITY MANAGER?S AGENDA:



THE FOLLOWING THREE PURCHASING RESOLUTIONS, WITH DETAILED

INFORMATION HAVING BEEN INCLUDED WITH THE CITY MANAGER?S AGENDA PACKET, WERE

SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY MANAGER CAVEZZA AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL UPON

THE ADOPTION OF A SINGLE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILOR ALLEN AND SECONDED BY

COUNCILOR HENDERSON WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE SEVEN MEMBERS OF COUNCIL

PRESENT FOR THIS

MEETING:





A Resolution (606-01) - Authorizing the purchase of two (2) commercial

portable air compressors from Air Compressor Sales, Inc., in the amount of

$20,200.00.



A Resolution (607-01) - Authorizing the procurement of emergency repair

services from Cimco Lewis, in the amount of $17,882.53.



A Resolution (608-01) - Authorizing payment of actuarial and consulting

services to William M. Mercer, Inc., in the amount of $33,236.00.



-------------------------------------------*** ***

***-------------------------------------------



CLERK OF COUNCIL'S AGENDA:



THE FOLLOWING FOUR RESOLUTIONS WERE SUBMITTED BY DEPUTY CLERK OF COUNCIL

DAVIS AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL UPON A SINGLE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILOR ALLEN

AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR POYDASHEFF WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE SEVEN

MEMBERS PRESENT FOR THIS

MEETING:





A Resolution (609-01) - excusing Councilor Charles McDaniel, Jr. from the

November 27, 2001 Council Meeting.



A Resolution (610-01) - excusing Councilor Julius Hunter, Jr. from the

December 4, 2001 Council Meeting.



A Resolution (611-01) - excusing Councilor Evelyn Turner Pugh from the

December 4, 2001 Council Meeting.



A Resolution (612-01) - excusing Councilor Evelyn Woodson from the

December 4, 2001 Council Meeting.



*** *** ***



THE FOLLOWING TAXICAB BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED BY DEPUTY

CLERK OF COUNCIL DAVIS AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL:





Application of Mr. Joe Bowman/Cheraqui Corporation for a taxicab owner?s

business license to operate Yellow Cab of Columbus, to be located at 1120 ?

21st, Columbus, GA.



Councilor Poydasheff moved approval. Seconded by Councilor Allen and

carried unanimously by those seven members present for this meeting.



*** *** ***



MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING BOARD WAS SUBMITTED BY DEPUTY CLERK OF COUNCIL

DAVIS AND OFFICIALLY RECEIVED BY THE

COUNCIL:





Board of Tax Assessors, Number 45.



*** *** ***



BOARD APPOINTMENTS:



There were no nominations submitted for the following boards with the

exception of the Community Development Advisory Council.



CIVIC CENTER ADVISORY BOARD:



Council District Five and Council District Seven have vacancies.



*** *** ***



COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL:



The two positions are Spencer Garrard, Council District 6, and Mr. Wade

Burford, Council District 10- At-Large. Councilor Henderson nominated Mr. Gary

Allen Jones for the Council District 10- At-Large position. Councilor

Poydasheff moved confirmation. Seconded by Councilor Suber and carried

unanimously by those seven members present for this meeting.



*** *** ***



HOUSING AUTHORITY:



Ms. Beatrice Grant, the resident member, on the Housing Authority.



*** *** ***





TAX ASSESSORS, BOARD OF:



The position of Ms. Patricia Love expiring on December 31, 2001; Ms. Love

cannot succeed herself.



*** *** ***



TREE EXPERTS, BOARD OF:



The position of Mr. Donald Campbell expiring on December 31, 2001; Mr.

Campbell cannot succeed himself.



*** *** ***



EXECUTIVE SESSION:



With there being no other business to come before this Council, Councilor

Poydasheff then made a motion for adjournment. Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers said that

he believes that we need to go into executive session regarding the settlement

offer from Fog Development. Councilor Poydasheff so moved. Seconded by

Councilor McDaniel. At this time, Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers asked if there was

anyone present that had an issue to bring before the Council. There was no one

who came forward to address the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers then called

attention to the motion to go into executive session to discuss litigation,

which carried unanimously by those seven members present for this meeting.



At 9:13 p.m., the Council adjourned it regular meeting to go into

executive session to discuss a matter of litigation.



At 9:23 p.m., the Council reconvened its regular session, at which time,

Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers advised that the Council did meet in executive session,

but there was no vote taken to settle the lawsuit.



*** *** ***



Councilor Poydasheff then made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Councilor

McDaniel and carried unanimously by those seven members present for this

meeting with the time being 9:25 p.m.



*** *** ***







Sandra T. Davis

Deputy Clerk of Council

The Council of Columbus, Georgia